the wrongful object appears to have been accomplished, sufficient ground for a reversal.

An occasional departure from the policy of treating corporations like natural persons is marked in the current of decisions. Thus, while it is admissable in a slander or a libel case against a natural person, to prove the defendant's reputed wealth for the purpose of showing the probable weight attached to his utterances3, the reputed wealth of a corporation may not be shown under a like pretext1. The sounder rule would probably be to exclude such showing in either case, but the law is otherwise. $103. Abatement of Actions by Dissolution.

A

At common law, dissolution abated all pending actions. judgment taken thereafter was void'. In Michigan this rule has been changed by statute. Suits pending at the time of dissolution may be continued in force by order of courts, and suits brought by, or against, the corporation, at any time during a period of three years after dissolution may be prosecuted to final judgment10.

2. In People v. Detroit, etc., P. R. Co., 125 Mich. 366-371, Justice Moore said: "A corporation when in court has no more rights than an individual, but it has the same rights, and the case should be tried with a view of disposing of the legitimate issues involved in the case, as the right of the controversy appears, instead of trying the case in such a way as to constantly appeal to the prejudices of the jury." For cases where remarks of counsel concerning corporations have been assigned as error, see Sweet v. Michigan Central R. Co., 87 Mich. 559. Selby v. Detroit Ry. Co., 122 Mich. 311; Britton v. Michigan Central R. Co., 113 Mich. 491; Johnson v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co., 135 Mich. 353; Hillman v. Detroit United Ry., 137 Mich. 184: Whipple v. Michigan Central R. Co.. 143 Mich. 41; Dolph v. Lake Shore etc. R. Co., 149 Mich. 278.

3. Farrand v. Aldrich, 85 Mich. 593; Brown v. Barnes, 39 Mich. 214; Ellis v. Whitehead, 95 Mich. 105.

4. Randall V. Evening News Ass'n, 97 Mich. 136.

5. Watson v. Watson, 53 Mich. 175.

6. Cork's Corp., Sec. 642.

8. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10889, provides that: "The court in which any suit or proceeding against a corporation which shall have been dissolved by a decree in chancery or otherwise shall be pending at the time of such dissolution, shall have power, on the application of either party thereto, to make an order for the continuance of such suit or proceeding, and the same may thereafter be continued until a final judgment or decree shall be had therein."

9. C. L. 1897, Sec. 8534.-"All corporations whose charters shall expire by their own limitation, or shall be annulled by forfeiture or otherwise, shall nevertheless continue to be bodies corporate, for the term of three years after the time when they would have been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against them, and of enabling them gradually to settle and close their concerns, to dispose of and convey their property, and to divide their capital stock; but not for the purpose of continuing the business for which such corporations have been or may be established."

10. Bewick v. Alpena Harbor Co.,

$104. Commencement of Suits.

Corporations have always had the power to sue and be sued. In this State, the power is declared by a general statute11, as well as by many of the enabling acts. Commencement of suit, at law or in equity, by a corporation differs but slightly from the practice applicable to commencement of suits by natural persons. Like individuals, corporations appear by attorney, or by solicitor. Their declarations are subscribed by counsel, and their bills, petitions and answers are subscribed in the corporate name (and verified when necessary) by authorized officers or agents. The managing officer of a corporation is presumed to have authority to commence suit in its name12. Like a natural person, a corporation may voluntarily submit itself to the jurisdiction of a court, even where the question of jurisdiction might have been successfully raised13.

Misdescription of a corporation in process or pleadings can be raised by plea in abatement only14, and if the objection is not so made, it is waived. Description of a corporation plaintiff or defendant, as "a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan," is ordinarily sufficient15. And in special proceedings where greater particularity is deemed advisable, it is sufficient to add to the description above given,

39 Mich. 700; Montgomery v. Merrill, 18 Mich. 344. As to foreclosure of mortgages and liens upon property of dissolved corporations, see C. L. 1897, Sec. 8580, et seq.

11. C. L. 1897, Sec. 8527.—“All corporations shall, when no other provision is specially made, be capable, in the corporate name, to sue and be sued, appear, prosecute and defend all actions and causes to final judgment and execution, in any courts or elsewhere."

12. Wachsmuth V. Merchants National Bank, 96 Mich. 426-430. An affidavit in proof of an account, wherein the affiant avers that he is the treasurer (or other officer) of the corporation in whose behalf the affidavit is made, sufficiently shows the authority of the officer. Forbes Lithograph Co. v. Winter, 107 Mich.

poration submits to the jurisdiction of the court when it files a demurrer. Thompson v. Mut. Benefit Ass'n. 52 Mich. 522. Or when it pleads the general issue. Gott v. Brigham, 41 Mich. 234; Grand Rapids etc. R. Co. v. Gray, 38 Mich. 461.

14. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10473.-"In suits or proceedings by or against any corporation, a mistake in the naming of such corporation shall be pleaded in abatement; and if not so pleaded, shall be deemed to have been waived." Sec. 10439.-"Any railroad company may be sued by the name in which its business shall be conducted when said suit shall be brought, and it shall not be per mitted to deny, by plea, or otherwise, that it is a corporation existing under said name." Plea of general issue by a defendant corporation admits that it has been sued by the right name.-Lake Superior Building Co. v. Thompson, 32 Mich. 293.

15. Palmiter v. Pere Marquette Lumber Co., 31 Mich. 182.

the title and date of approval of the act under which the corporation is organized1o.

In cases where the corporate existence is not involved in the issue, a corporation may be sued in its corporate name without describing it as a corporation, where the name and condition of the defendant are such as to reasonably raise the presumption that it is an incorporated company17. Even in suits against foreign corporations, it is not essential to allege that the defendant is foreign to this State18, except in instances where a claim of right is founded upon that fact.

A corporation may be known by more than one name1o, and suit brought by or against it in any name by which it is known will be sufficient, unless advantage is taken of the defect by plea in abatement 20.

Service of process in chancery suits may be made in the manner authorized for the service of process in suits at law21. Suits at law may be commenced against domestic corporations, in circuit court, by service of declaration or summons upon the presiding officer, cashier, secretary, treasurer, or any other officer or agent of the corporation, or by leaving the same at the banking house or office of the corporation22. Where a domestic

16. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10472.-"In actions by or against any corporation created by or under any law of this state, it shall not be necessary to recite the act or acts of incorporation, or the proceedings by which such corporation was created, or to set forth the substance thereof, but the same may be pleaded by reciting the title of such act, and the date of its approval." When corporate existence is a jurisdictional fact put in issue by the pleadings and forming the essence of the controversy (as, for example, in a quo warranto proceeding), it has been held that the corporation should be described with particularity.—People v. DeMill, 15 Mich. 164-180.

17. Prussian National Ins. Co. v. Eisenhardt, 153 Mich. 198-202. Bennington Iron Co. v. Rutherford, 18 N. J. L. 105.

18. Williams v. Grain & Stock Board, 99 Mich. 80; but see Ettelsohn v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 64 Mich. 331-335. In Grinnell v. Ni

agara Fire Ins. Co., 127 Mich. 19-22, it was held, that an affidavit and writ of garnishment describing a foreign corporation as, "a corporation, etc." without stating whether it was foreign or domestic was sufficient.

19. People. v. Oakland County Savings Bank, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 282286. Thatcher v. West River National Bank, 19 Mich. 196; Petrie Lumber Co. v. Collins, 66 Mich 64; Iron Star Co. v. Wehse, 117 Mich. 487.

20. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10473; Meurer v. Detroit etc. Protective Association, 95 Mich. 451-454.

21. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10023.-"Process issued from Circuit Courts in chancery may be served upon corporations in the same manner as is or may be provided by law for service upon such corporation of process in actions at law."

22. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10468.-"Suits against corporations may be commenced by writs of summons or by declaration, in the same manner that

corporation has failed to keep up its organization, or has abandoned its business, service of process may be made upon. its last presiding officer, president, cashier, secretary or treasurer23. Service upon foreign corporations, both at law and in equity, may be had by serving summons, declaration or chancery subpoena upon any officer or agent of the corporation, or upon the conductor of any railroad train, or upon the master of any vessel owned by or in the service of the corporation24. Where a foreign corporation has been assigned by the Secretary of State to operate under the provisions of an act which itself provides

ACTIONS AND PROCEDURE, ETC.

how process may be served, the provisions of either this general law, or of such act, may be followed25.

Attachment lies against domestic corporations as against A writ natural persons, and under the same circumstances 26. of attachment is but a summons with a clause added authorizing seizure of property27. An attachment issued out of Circuit Court against a domestic corporation may be served upon the same officers and agents upon whom a summons might be served's. The fact of being a foreign corporation is, in itself, Service on any a ground for proceeding by attachment29. officer, member, clerk or agent of a foreign corporation is sufficient30.

Actions of tort against foreign corporations may be commenced by attachment. If the defendant has a manager, agent. superintendent or other principal officer within this State, service may be made upon him31. Service upon foreign mutual benefit societies32 and upon non-resident life, fire, inland or marine insurance companies33 may be had by serving the process upon the commissioner of insurance. As to domestic insurance companies, service may be had upon any agent found within the State. There is a special statute devoted to service of process upon railway companies35.

30. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10474.

31. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10011; See also Sec. 10474.

32. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10429.

33. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10015. 34. C. L. 1897, Sec. 10444. Monger v. New Era Association, 145 Mich. 683.

35. Act 260 Pub. Acts 1899, p. 419 provides: "That whenever in any suit or proceedings, either in law or equity, it shall become necessary to serve any process, notice or writing upon any railroad company in this State, it shall be sufficient to serve the same upon any station agent, or ticket agent at any station or depot along the line, or at the end of the railroad of such company, and such service shall be deemed as good and effectual as if made on the officers, stockholders or members, or either of them, of such company: Provided, that in counties where the company has no such station or ticket agent, service may be made by serv

153